It seems to me that humans should be compensated based on their contribution to human thought, experience and prosperity. Of course, the terms 'thought', 'experience' and 'prosperity' are often debated, and so the prior sentence could require manuscripts worth of elaboration to reach an agreeable meaning. However, even without such elaboration, there is much that can said about how exploitation, and the dynamics of capital, can cause a disparity in contribution and compensation. That being said, neither the exact meaning of the opening sentence nor these more commonly discussed cause of disparity are the topic of this blog post. Rather, I want to explore how, even when the meaning of the opening terms are defined and exploitation and capital is well checked, there may still be a disparity in compensation and contribution in the market place. I'll disclaim now that I'm not an expert in economics or political science, and this is really more of a ramble; but hopefully my thoughts will make some sense.
Essential, what I wish to be the case, is that products of human design (whether it be literature, music, a crafted piece of furniture, or a whatever-else) are to produce a total value (roughly) in proportion to the thought and expression that went into them. What I fear however, is that this wish may be at odds even the most just market. Indeed, I tend to think that more thoughtful design even has a tendency to reduce the total value produced by a product, because the apperception of said product itself requires thought and effort. For instance, consider a particularly thoughtful piece of literature which brings great value to whomever comprehends it. It is likely that such a piece is rather hard to comprehend, even if the author tries their best to make it accessible, for some concepts and observations simply take time and thought to get a handle on. Such a piece of literature may be highly valued and coveted amongst those who take the time to comprehend it, but the author is not compensated based on the value of any one sale but instead on the value brought by the sum of sales; however, it is unlikely that a challenging piece of literature would have many sales; it is as though the author must pay a cost for the thought placed in the books consumption---that the compensation of the author is not in proportion to their thought and expression, but instead in proportion to the difference, or perhaps even ratio, of theirs and the engaged readers thought and expression. Similarly, in music it seems quite incentivized to not challenge the listeners ears to much, which is not to say that there are no popular artists that do, but rather that such artists must run the risk of losing certain members of their audience. As a mathematician, I sometimes think about how unmarketable my field (essentially in the areas I care for) would be if it wasn't so publicly subsidized; it would be rather hard to make a living if I could only make money off the ten other people who have the time and context to understand my paper, even if that paper is a valuable contribution to the field.
